You folks need to read this

This article is about the legality of fishing on a navagational waterway.
Can you Imagine getting arrested for fishing a river like the Mississippi !
Read this and get a bad ulser!
http://www.louisianasportsman.com/details.php?id=213#

Dennis

It so preposterous that its hard to believe. But again, so much preposterour fertilizer has come to pass that this needs to get knocked in the head - fast.

Surely there will be ample venue for sportsmen to respond. If I see one I'll post it here. If anybody else sees one, please do the same.

To quote: "?This is gigantic,? said Mark Hilzim, president of Restore Our Waterway Access, Inc. ?He has opened up Pandora?s box. If I read that (ruling) right, does that mean nobody has the right to fish above the low-water mark?"

Since when do people expect to catch any fish above thehigh water mark??? Usually fish are below the high water mark, in the water. Above the high water mark can mean almost anything, like 100 yds above, or a 1/4 mile above. I don't see why this is upsetting or when people ever had the right to fish or hunt without regard to tresspass laws in areas above the high water mark. Mt. Everest is above the high water mark too ;)

jed

Gee and people vote in this good old USA for people like this judge. Absurd is my view.

Guys,

After a bit of 'digging' into this.

The mississippi 'flooded' out of it's normal banks and covered private property.

Folks fishing on this 'private property' were arrested/cited for tresspass.

In their defense, they claimed that the US law applying to navigable waterways, which ensures public 'access' but doens't mention fishing, hunting, or any other 'specific' activity, applied to them.

The Magistrate agreed. However, the District Judge did not. First, he cited that the US law makes no specific provision for fishing, which is true, but not truly germaine to the issue here, which was 'access' to public waterways-v-private property rights. He also cited that the public had the obvious right under the law to use the river UP TO, not 'above' the normal high water mark into 'flooded' areas.

What this means is that the District Judge didn't want to grant folks the right to trespass onto private property just because it was flooded. That sounds reasonable to me.

He definitely DID NOT open the door to restrict or prohibit fishing on navigable waterways. In fact, he UPHELD the current law which ensures public access to the normal river channel.

The priveledges of 'access' curently include fishing for those properly licensed to do so. Absent specific legislation to the contrary, this won't change.

This is a very narrow ruling on an unusual circumstance. Since it was a District Judges ruling, it sets no legal precedent, even for the same jurisdiction.

The statement in the Luoisiana Sportsman article about being able to boat but not fish is ludicrous and has no basis in fact based on the actual ruling.

In any event, I think the Restore Our Waterway Access folks are over reacting. They are a political organization, and that's not out of character for such, however.

I'd not worry too much. Just my opinion, though, and others may feel differently.

Good luck!

Buddy

Thanks for the clarification.

This issue comes up every now and then on the St. Johns River here in Florida when it floods. During high water, you can float over fences. It is my understanding that while the water is high, you can be in a boat anywhere there is water. If you get out of the boat on private property, you are trespassing.

I agree, flooding doesn't change property lines in regard to trespassing once the water level returns to normal. I also believe as long as you are in a boat over someone's flooded property, you should be able to fish. Wade fishing on private property is another matter...

:D There was an issue similar to this one several years ago, I believe on the Dundee in Maryland. If I remember correctly, property owners did own land under the water surrounding their docks. They filed a claim, I guess the right term, to prevent fisherman in boats from fishing around their docks.

The judge ruled that while the owners owned land, they did not own the water and fisherman in boats had every right to the water, not get out on docks or set foot on private land.

All people had a right to the water.

Hope I remembered this right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buddy Sanders

Guys,

After a bit of 'digging' into this.

The mississippi 'flooded' out of it's normal banks and covered private property.

Folks fishing on this 'private property' were arrested/cited for tresspass.

In their defense, they claimed that the US law applying to navigable waterways, which ensures public 'access' but doens't mention fishing, hunting, or any other 'specific' activity, applied to them.

The Magistrate agreed. However, the District Judge did not. First, he cited that the US law makes no specific provision for fishing, which is true, but not truly germaine to the issue here, which was 'access' to public waterways-v-private property rights. He also cited that the public had the obvious right under the law to use the river UP TO, not 'above' the normal high water mark into 'flooded' areas.

What this means is that the District Judge didn't want to grant folks the right to trespass onto private property just because it was flooded. That sounds reasonable to me.

He definitely DID NOT open the door to restrict or prohibit fishing on navigable waterways. In fact, he UPHELD the current law which ensures public access to the normal river channel.

The priveledges of 'access' curently include fishing for those properly licensed to do so. Absent specific legislation to the contrary, this won't change.

This is a very narrow ruling on an unusual circumstance. Since it was a District Judges ruling, it sets no legal precedent, even for the same jurisdiction.

The statement in the Luoisiana Sportsman article about being able to boat but not fish is ludicrous and has no basis in fact based on the actual ruling.

In any event, I think the Restore Our Waterway Access folks are over reacting. They are a political organization, and that's not out of character for such, however.

I'd not worry too much. Just my opinion, though, and others may feel differently.

Good luck!

Buddy

---

Buddy
Yours is the best interpretation on this ruling I've seen yet.
Thanks

NameKagon,

Wish it was my personal knowledge of the law involved here, but that's not my area of expertise.

I have a lawyer friend that specializes in federal issues, and asked him to look into it for me. What I wrote is his interpretation of the ruling.

Nice to have smart friends.

Good luck!

Buddy

With the way things are going they probly will outlaw fishing.They're trying to take all of our other rights away.To me fishing is a right.(hey PETA ptttttttttthht)I heard about this on the radio and went looking for it.Gives us all some food for thought though!
Dennis